A ruling by the Supreme Court gives Donald Trump the chance to challenge his conviction in New York. Now at least the announcement of the sentence has been delayed – if it comes at all.
In the New York trial over former President Donald Trump’s hush money payments, the announcement of the sentence has been delayed until September 18. The new date set by Judge Juan Merchan was revealed in a letter to the parties to the trial. “If this should still be necessary,” he added. The judge is thus giving Trump’s lawyers the necessary time to request that the verdict be overturned.
The reason for the postponement is a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States on the immunity of US presidents. The ruling states that US presidents enjoy extensive protection from prosecution for official acts in office. The move by Trump’s lawyers was to be expected, but it is not given much of a chance because the New York case revolves to a significant extent around acts that occurred before his presidency.
A few weeks ago, a jury in New York found the former president guilty on 34 charges. The trial concerned the illegal concealment of hush money payments to a porn actress. It was the first time in the history of the United States that a former president was convicted of a crime. In the worst case scenario, Trump could face a prison sentence of several years.
Biden sees “dangerous precedent”
Trump’s success before the highest US court is groundbreaking: The Supreme Court ruled that although he does not enjoy complete immunity for his actions during his time as president, the protection from prosecution is very extensive. US President Joe Biden spoke of a “dangerous precedent” in view of the Supreme Court’s decision.
With their decision, the judges are also further delaying the start of the election fraud trial against the 78-year-old in the US capital Washington. A lower court must now find out which actions Trump’s immunity applies to. It is considered very unlikely that the trial in Washington will begin before the presidential election in November.
Legal disputes are likely to continue for a long time
The New York case is different from the election fraud case in Washington, for example. The case in Manhattan revolved primarily around Trump’s actions as a presidential candidate before the 2016 election. Trump had already failed in the past with the argument that the case concerned his presidency.
However, Trump’s lawyers could argue that the prosecution in the case also relied on evidence from Trump’s time in the White House. The Supreme Court ruled that official actions by US presidents are not only protected from prosecution. They may also not be used as evidence in criminal proceedings. This is likely to become an issue in an appeal at the latest. Trump had already announced that he would appeal against the verdict after the sentence was announced.
Biden: “The only limits are set by the president himself”
US President Biden criticized the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling and warned of serious consequences. “Today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits to what a president can do,” the Democrat said in a hastily arranged speech at the White House. Any president, including Trump, will now have the freedom to ignore the law, warned the 81-year-old. He wants to run against Trump in the presidential election in November.
With its decision, the Supreme Court has created a “fundamentally new principle”: the power of the presidency will no longer be limited by laws, not even by the Supreme Court, Biden warned. “The only limits are set by the president himself.” The people of the USA have a right to receive an answer from the courts about Trump’s role in the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, before the upcoming presidential election in November. But this answer will probably no longer be available after the ruling.
Biden, who is in a critical phase of his campaign after a disastrous performance at the TV debate last week, used the opportunity to call on people to vote. He did not answer questions about his candidacy.
Liberal judges express “fear for our democracy”
The Supreme Court’s ruling was passed by six votes to three. The three judges, who are considered liberal, did not join the right-wing conservative majority of the Supreme Court, which Trump had cemented through personnel decisions during his time as president. In the dissenting opinion written by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the lawyers expressed their “fear for our democracy.”
Sotomayor outlined conceivable situations in which the president’s protection from prosecution could be applied in the future – as examples, she cited an assassination attempt on a rival commissioned by him, a military coup by the ousted president or evidence of bribery.
“Even if these nightmare scenarios never come to pass, and I pray they never do, the damage is already done,” Sotomayor wrote. “In every exercise of his authority, the President is now a king above the law.” The long-term consequences of the decision are significant. The court is thereby “effectively creating a lawless zone around the President and shaking up the status quo that has existed since the founding of the nation.”